JUDGMENT O.P. Mehrotra, J. - Appellants-Jaibir, Rajbir and Sube have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 3-4-1978 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad convicting them for the offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life. 2. Deceased Bhopal was cousin brother of informant Ranpal Singh PW 1. Appellants Jaibir and Rajbir are own brothers, being sons of Udai Singh. Appellants Sube is cousin brother of Appellant Jaibir and Rajbir. Besides these three Appellants, there were two other persons viz. Aman Singh and Jagdish, who were accused in this case but they were acquitted by the trial Court. Aman Singh was the uncle of Appellants Jaibir, Rajbir and Sube while Jagdish was said to be their friend. 3. Randhir alias Pathan was the own brother of Appellant Sube. It is said that about 3 years prior to the present incident, Randhir alias Pathan had come to the Gher of Bhopal deceased and had fired at him with intent to murder. However, Bhopal Singh escaped and in self-defence he fired at Randhir alias Pathan and succeeded in killing him in his own Gher. A final report had been submitted in the above matter. It is said that from that very day, Randhir's brother Sube and others were on the look out for murdering Bhopal Singh. 4. This incident is alleged to have taken place on 17-10-1976 at 5 P.M. on the Chak Road. Deceased Bhopal Singh, alongwith his uncle Hukum Singh PW 4 and two labourers viz. Ranjit PW 2 and Jagdish, was returning along the Chak road from his Tara-wala field with empty Bhaisa-Buggi after leaving manure in that field. At that time informant Ranpal PW 1 who was a cousin of the deceased was going from his Gher towards his fields and was at some distance behind the Buggi. At about 5 P.M., the said Buggi reached between the sugarcane field of Sakhwant Pradhan and the Chari field of Dayaram Jat. At that time, Bhopal deceased and Hukum Singh were walking ahead of Bhaisa-Buggi which was driven by Ranjit PW 2 and Jagdish was sitting in the Buggi while Ranpal PW 1 was walking a short distance behind the Buggi. Suddenly all the five accused persons came out of the Chari field of Dayaram. At that time, Bhopal deceased and Hukum Singh were walking ahead of Bhaisa-Buggi which was driven by Ranjit PW 2 and Jagdish was sitting in the Buggi while Ranpal PW 1 was walking a short distance behind the Buggi. Suddenly all the five accused persons came out of the Chari field of Dayaram. Appellant Sube was armed with a rifle while Jaibir, Rajbir and Jagdish (acquitted accused) carried Tammanchas (Pistols). Appellant Sube shouted: Bhopal tumhen Aaj ham Randhir Pathan ke katal karne ka maja dikhate hain. Thereupon Sube, Jaibir, Rajbir and Jagdish fired from their respective weapons at Bhopal. Bhopal fell down on the Chak Road. Thereupon Aman Singh (acquitted accused) shouted from behind that he (Bhopal) should not be permitted to escape whereupon Jagdish threw something which burst with a loud report and produced much smoke. All the accused persons then ran away towards east through the vacant field of Dayaram. Witnesses Anangpal and Shishpal PW 3 are said to have arrived there and they are also said to have seen the Appellants running away with their weapons. 5. A report of this occurrence was lodged by Ranpal PW 1 at P.S. Modinagar which was at a distance of 5 Kms from the spot on the same Evening at 7.30 P.M. A case under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120-B IPC was registered against the five accused persons and investigation was taken up by S.O. Badan Singh Tewatiya PW 5. He interrogated Ranpal at the police station and left for the spot. As there was no sufficient light he could not hold inquest at night. He sent S.I. Brahma Singh for arresting the accused persons but they were not available at their houses. The Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses. On the next morning, he held the inquest and sent the dead body alongwith the papers for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Om Prakash PW 6 on 18-10-1976 at 5.15 P.M. 6. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of Bhopal: 1. Gunshot wound of entry 4 cm x 3 cm on Rt. side forehead 2 cm above the Rt. eye brow. No blackening or charring present around the wound. Wound brain cavity deep. 2. Gun shot wound of exit 5 cm x 4 cm on back of head in middle. It communicates with injury No. 1. 3. Gunshot wound of entry 4 cm x 3 cm on Rt. side forehead 2 cm above the Rt. eye brow. No blackening or charring present around the wound. Wound brain cavity deep. 2. Gun shot wound of exit 5 cm x 4 cm on back of head in middle. It communicates with injury No. 1. 3. Gun shot wound of entries 2 cm x 2 cm into abdominal cavity deep, back of Rt. side abdomen upper part 4 cm from lumber and spine. No blackening charring present around the wound. 4. Gun shot wound of exit in mid axillary line on left side (3cm x 3 cm) chest 16 cm below the axilla. Communicate to injury No. 3. 5. Gun shot wound of entries 1 cm x 1 cm bone deep on back of left forearm upper part. No blackening or charring present underneath Fr. of both bones i.e., radius ulna. 6. Gun shot wound of exit 2 cm x 2 cm infront of left forearm, middle point. It communicates with injury No. 5. Internal examination revealed that all the skull bones were fractured. Membranes and brain were lacerated. All cranial fossae were fractured. Rib Nos. 8 and 9 on the left side were fractured. Pleura was lacerated on the left side. Left lung and peritoneum were lacerated. The small and large intestines were lacerated at places. The stomach contained about 200 grams semi digested food material. The death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to vital organs (vide post mortem report Ex. Ka-4). 7. The Investigating Officer inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex. Ka-10. He recovered two empty cartridges (Ex. 1 and 2), one bullet piece (Ex. 3). one iron Goonj (Ex. 4) and an iron piece (Ex. 5) from the spot. He also recovered blood from the spot. Accused Aman Singh and Rajbir were arrested from the Gher of Sakhawat Pradhan on that day, that is, 18-10-1975. On 3-11-1976 the Investigating Officer learnt that accused Sube and Jaibir had surrendered before the Court. As accused Jagdish was still not traceable, he obtained warrants under Sections 82/83 Code of Criminal Procedure against him. After completing investigation, he submitted chargesheet against the aforesaid four accused persons on 24-11-76 and also against Jagdish as an absconder. Jagdish was, however, arrested on 13-5-1977. As accused Jagdish was still not traceable, he obtained warrants under Sections 82/83 Code of Criminal Procedure against him. After completing investigation, he submitted chargesheet against the aforesaid four accused persons on 24-11-76 and also against Jagdish as an absconder. Jagdish was, however, arrested on 13-5-1977. In the Sessions Court, however, all the five accused persons were tried jointly. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, PW 1 Ranpal was the informant of this case, PW 2 Ranjit was also an eye witness of this occurrence. However, he did not support the prosecution case and stated that while he along with Bhopal and Jagdish was going towards the Gher on the Bhainsa-Buggi after leaving manure in the field of Bhopal and had reached near the sugarcane field, there was a Dhamaka (bursting of shell) as a result of which the atmosphere was filled with smoke so that he and Jagdish got down from tie Buggi and ran towards the village. He stated! that he did not see any accused nor he could say as to what happened to Bhopal (deceased). He was treated hostile by the prosecution, and was confronted] with his statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he had supported the prosecution case. He admitted to have made the statement but stated that the Investigating Officer obtained this statement from him after assaulting him. His statement had also been recorded u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex. Ka-2). When questioned in this respect, he stated that the Investigating Officer had taken him to the Court and had obtained his thumb impressions on blank papers. However, he did not complain about before any authority. 9. PW 4 Hukum Singh and PW 3 Shishpal have also given eye witness account. PW 4 Hukum Singh was going with the deceased ahead of the Buggi at the time of this occurrence and has fully supported the prosecution case. It is not disputed that he was the uncle of the deceased. PW 3 Shishpal is an independent witness of the locality who had arrived at the spot after hearing the sound of gun-shots. He and Anangpal were at the tube-well when they heard the sound of gun-shots and ran towards the place of occurrence. It is not disputed that he was the uncle of the deceased. PW 3 Shishpal is an independent witness of the locality who had arrived at the spot after hearing the sound of gun-shots. He and Anangpal were at the tube-well when they heard the sound of gun-shots and ran towards the place of occurrence. This witness does not claim to have seen the Appellants actually firing the gunshots but he saw all the five accused persons along with their weapons running from the spot towards east. He too has fully corroborated the prosecution case. 10. PW 5 S.I. Badan Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case while PW 6 Dr. Om Prakash had conducted the post mortem examination. PW 7 S.I. Yashwant Singh and PW 8 Constable Chandravir Singh are formal police witnesses. 11. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty. They denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. They did not adduce any oral evidence. 12. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case against accused Jaibir, Rajbir and Sube and held that it was proved that all three of them had committed murder of Bhopal by firing from fire-arms and that they had acted in furtherance of the common intention to murder him. Accordingly he convicted each of them u/s 302/34 IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above. As regards accused Jagdish and Aman Singh, he found that the case against them was not free from doubt. Regarding accused Jagdish, it was observed that he had no motive to join hands with the other accused and that he was not put up for test- identification even wiien claimed by him. Regarding accused Aman Singh also it was observed that a very minor role of instigating had been assigned to him and that there was no point for Aman Singh to instigate the other accused and that after the alleged instigation by him, the other three accused had not done anything, and consequently, Aman Singh could not be one of the members of the unlawful assembly and could not have shared the common object of murdering Bhopal. Both these accused, therefore were given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted. 13. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, the present Appellants have come up to this Court in appeal. Both these accused, therefore were given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted. 13. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, the present Appellants have come up to this Court in appeal. It has not been disputed before us that deceased Bhopal had been murdered by gun-shot wounds on that evening. There is also no dispute regarding the place of occurrence which is established from the fact that the dead body of Bhopal and blood was recovered from that place. The main contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants were (1) that all the witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution were interested and partisan and that their very presence at the spot was doubtful, (2) that the prosecution evidence was inconsistent with the medical evidence in as much as all the three gun-shot wounds found on the dead body appear to have been caused by rifle and that they could not be caused by Desi-Pistols, which are alleged to have been carried by Appellants Jaibir and Rajbir, (3) that the first information report was tainted and had been ante-timed and (4) that the prosecution version was improbable and unworthy of credence. It was contended that deceased Bhopal had several enemies and he might have been killed by some unknown persons and that complainant Ranpal and other witnesses were not actually present at the spot and had not seen anything but the complainant filed a false report implicating them on account of enmity. 14. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned State Counsel as well the learned Counsel for the complainant at length and have carefully examined the entire material on the record. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellants we also summoned Shri. O.P.M. Tripathi, Ballistic Expert, State Forensic Science Laboratory Lucknow and examined him as a Court witness with respect to the injuries of deceased Bhopal as shown in the post mortem report. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case including the statement of Ballistic Expert examined before us, we are fully convinced that this murder had been committed by the Appellants and that they were rightly convicted. 15. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case including the statement of Ballistic Expert examined before us, we are fully convinced that this murder had been committed by the Appellants and that they were rightly convicted. 15. We may first consider the medical evidence and the statement of the Ballistic Expert with a view to ascertain whether the injuries found on the dead-body could be caused by the weapons and in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It is noteworthy that out of the six gun-shot wounds found on the dead body of Bhopal, three were wounds of entry and the remaining three were wounds of exit. There is thus no dispute that the deceased had received three gunshot wounds, one of which was received on right-side forehead, the second on back of right side abdomen and the third on back of left fore-arm, and all the three bullets had passed through and through. The post-mortem report further shows that there was no blackening or charring present around any of these wounds, which indicates that the shots had been fired from a distance of more than 5 or 6 feet. The learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that looking to the size of the wounds of entry and wounds of exit and also to the fact that all the skull bones and left side rib Nos. 8 and 9, and both bones of left fore-arm were fractured as shown in the post-mortem report, it must be inferred that all the three wounds had been caused by some powerful fire-arm with a long barrel such as rifle. He drew our attention to the fact that according to the prosecution case, there was only one rifle carried by accused Sube while the remaining three accused viz. Jaibir, Rajbir arid Jagdish had only Tamanchas (Pistols) which were country made (Desi) as stated by PW 4 Hukum Singh towards the end of his cross-examination. His contention was that none of these injuries could be caused by a country made pistol, which was comparatively less powerful weapon with low velocity and small i barrel. According to him, the statement of ballistic expert supported his contention. His contention was that none of these injuries could be caused by a country made pistol, which was comparatively less powerful weapon with low velocity and small i barrel. According to him, the statement of ballistic expert supported his contention. In our opinion, this contention has no merit and neither the medical evidence nor the statement of ballistic expert rules out the probability of at least two out of three injuries received by the deceased having been caused by country made pistol if the same is fired from a distance of say six to ten feet. According to the prosecution case, accused Sube had fired a shot from a rifle. Injury No. 1 which was a gun-shot wound of entry on the forehead and its wound of exit (injury No. 2) evidently appear to have been caused by a powerful weapon such as rifle because all the skull bones underneath this injury had been fractured. It is common knowledge that skull bones are thick and stronger and require more power for being fractured. This is, however, not the case with rib Nos. 8 and 9 and radius and ulna, which get fractured easily. It is noteworthy that only two ribs Nos. 8 and 9 were fractured beneath injury No. 3 and radius and ulna bones of left fore-arm were fractured beneath injury No. 5. The ballistic expert has, no doubt, stated that shots fired from a country made pistol or revolver have a velocity of Only 400 to 500 feet per second and that the effect to a shot from country made revolver will not be so devastating as the effect of a shot fired from a factory made revolver. The ballistic expert made a general statement that the fact that all the three shots had gone through and through and the bones underneath were fractured indicated that these shots had been fired from a high velocity fire-arm such as rifle. His statement could be correct in respect of injury No. 1 on the head but the same could not be accepted with respect to injury Nos. 3 and 5, which were on the abdomen and fore-arm. We may observe that this ballistic expert did not impress us as a very competent person in his line. His statement could be correct in respect of injury No. 1 on the head but the same could not be accepted with respect to injury Nos. 3 and 5, which were on the abdomen and fore-arm. We may observe that this ballistic expert did not impress us as a very competent person in his line. It is also noteworthy that he did not rule out the possibility of all these injuries having been caused by a fire-arm of sophisticated type. He admitted that the cartridge or a rifle can be used in a country made pistol and further stated that the injuries found on the dead body of Bhopal could be caused by sophisticated country made revolver fired from a maximum distance of ten feet. He did not rule out the possibility of these injuries having been caused by shots fired from a sophisticated country-made revolver or pistol fired from a distance of ten feet, although according to him, the chances of these injuries being caused by firing from country made revolver were meagre. In our opinion, injuries Nos. 3 and 5 could easily be caused by shots fired from country made pistol or revolver fired from a distance of more than 5 or 6 feet but less than 10 or 12 feet. Thus there was no inconsistency between the ocular evidence and medical evidence inasmuch as injury No. 1 could be caused by a shot from the rifle carried by accused Sube while the remaining two injuries could be caused by shots fired from Tamanchas (pistols or revolvers) even though they might be country made. This contention of the Appellants, therefore, fails. 16. The learned Counsel for the Appellants next contended that PW 1 Ranpal was the cousin of the deceased while PW 4 Hukum Singh was his uncle. He also pointed out that PW 2 Ranjit who was the only independent witness did not support the prosecution case and was treated hostile by the prosecution. As regards PW 3 Shishpal it was pointed out that he had not seen the actual occurrence but claims to have seen the accused persons running away towards east along with their weapons. He also pointed out that PW 2 Ranjit who was the only independent witness did not support the prosecution case and was treated hostile by the prosecution. As regards PW 3 Shishpal it was pointed out that he had not seen the actual occurrence but claims to have seen the accused persons running away towards east along with their weapons. It is also contended that if Ranpal and Hukum Singh had been there, they must have also received injuries and the fact that none of the witnesses received any injury goes to show that they were not present at the spot. It is correct that Ranpal PW 1 and Hukum Singh PW 4 were related to the deceased and they may be said to be the interested and partisan witnesses. However, they cannot be termed as chance witnesses and from the mere fact that they did not receive any injury, it cannot be inferred that they were not present at the spot. The law simply requires that the testimony of relations and partisan witnesses should be closely scrutinised. Even on close scrutiny of the entire evidence, we find ourselves in agreement with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that they were actually present at the spot and had witnessed the occurrence. Despite a lengthy and searching cross-examination, there were no material contradictions or discrepancies in their statements, which might show that they were not present at the spot or that they were not truthful. The learned Sessions Judge, who had recorded their statements and who had the additional advantage of noting their demeanour has believed them and has given cogent reasons for doing so. We do not find any valid reason for taking a different view. It is noteworthy that the occurrence had taken place at 5 p.m. and the first information report had been lodged at P.S. Modinagar which was at a distance of 5 Kms. from the spot on the same evening at 7.30 p.m. This shows that the first information report had been lodged promptly without undue delay and it contains all the details regarding the weapons carried by the accused and the manner in which the occurrence took place and the persons who were present and had witnessed the same. from the spot on the same evening at 7.30 p.m. This shows that the first information report had been lodged promptly without undue delay and it contains all the details regarding the weapons carried by the accused and the manner in which the occurrence took place and the persons who were present and had witnessed the same. Due weight has, therefore, to be attached to the testimony of PW 1 Ranpal and PW 4 Hukum Singh even though they were closely related to the deceased. 17. As regards PW 3 Shishpal, it is correct that he did not see the accused persons actually committing the murder, yet he claims to have seen the accused persons running away from the place of occurrence towards east. He was an independent person of the locality, who was at his tube-well when he heard the sound of gun-shots and rushed to the spot. As the shots had already been fired, there was no question of his seeing the accused persons actually firing the shots. He saw the accused persons running towards east. He has named all the accused persons and has also stated about the arms carried by them. He has also stated that when he reached the spot he found Bhopal lying dead on the Chak-road. He has also corroborated the prosecution case regarding the presence of witnesses Ranpal, Hukum Singh, Ranjit and Shishpal. We find no good reason why the testimony of this witness should not be accepted. At one place in his cross-examination, he, no doubt, stated that the police-men were saying that it was not discernible as to with what weapon the injuries had been caused. This statement does not lead us anywhere. The statement appears to have been made under some confusion. Even though the police-men were talking in that manner, it does not at all show that the prosecution case was false because in the first information report itself, it was mentioned that the accused persons had fired from rifle and pistols and all the witnesses had also said so before the investigating officer. As such the above statement does not in any way diminish the veracity of the statement of this witness. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon his testimony. As such the above statement does not in any way diminish the veracity of the statement of this witness. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon his testimony. We further find that the Sessions Judge was also correct in holding on the basis of the statements of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 that this occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution and in holding the present Appellants guilty of the offence u/s 302/34 IPC. 18. We also do not find any merit in the defence contention that the first information report was ante-timed, or the investigation was tainted or that the prosecution version was improbable. It is correct that in the inquest report the investigating officer had originally written the ijiame of the informant as 'Paran Pal Singh s/o Dariyab Singh'. Later on ,he corrected the same to read as 'Ranpal s/o Mool Chand It may be noted that Paran Pal Singh s/o Dariyab Singh was the scribe of the first information report while the informant was Ran Pal s/o Mool Chand. A perusal of the first information report Ex. Ka-3 would show that the name of Paran Pal Singhss/oDariyab Singh has been written in the third bottom line while the name of Ranpal s/o Mool Chand is written at the end of the subject-matter of the first information report. Evidently, it appears that a mistake was committed by the investigating officer which is easily explainable. As soon as the investigating officer realised this mistake, he corrected the same. We are, however, unable to accept the defence contention that from the above, it can be inferred that the first information report had not been prepared till then and that the same had been prepared subsequently and had been ante-timed. As a matter of fact we do not find any good ground for holding that the first information report was ante-timed or that the investigation was tainted. 19. We also do not find any substance in the defence contention that the prosecution case was improbable. The learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that as the shots were fired from a distance of more than 5 feet it would naturally mean that the persons who fired shots were Inside the Chari field and hence they could not be seen by the witnesses. The learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that as the shots were fired from a distance of more than 5 feet it would naturally mean that the persons who fired shots were Inside the Chari field and hence they could not be seen by the witnesses. The site-plan and the oral evidence show that there was a Nali in between the road aind Chad field of Dayaram. The evidence shows that the assailants had emerged out of the standing Chari crop and fired at the deceased. Thus the distance between the assailants and the deceased when he received the gun-shots could easily range from 6 to 10 feet. The deceased received the gun-shots while he was walking on the Chak-road and after receiving the shots he fell near the drain. There was no inconsistency in the prosecution case in this respect and no inference can be drawn that the assailants must have fired from inside the Chari crop so that they could not be seen by the witnesses. On the other hand the evidence categorically shows that they had fired immediately after they emerged from Chari crop so that the witnesses, who were not far off, could easily sec the assailants, especially when the occurrence took place at 5 p.m. in the evening when there was sufficient day light. 20. It was further contended on behalf of the Appellants that if the witnesses had actually been present at the spot, they were also expected to have received the injuries of gun-shots as well as from the bomb which is said to have exploded near the place of occurrence. Is is correct that Hukum Singh PW 4 was talking to Bhopal at that time and both of them were walking slightly ahead of the Buggi. The statement of Hukum Singh, however, shows that when the shots were fired, he went inside the sugarcane crop of Sakhwat on account of fear and it was then that the bomb exploded. It is also noteworthy that the shots had not been fired from a great distance but had been fired from a short distance of about 6 to 10 feet so that it was nothing surprising if Hukum Singh did not receive any injury. The other witnesses were farther off and hence there was no question of their receiving any injury. It is also noteworthy that the shots had not been fired from a great distance but had been fired from a short distance of about 6 to 10 feet so that it was nothing surprising if Hukum Singh did not receive any injury. The other witnesses were farther off and hence there was no question of their receiving any injury. As regards the bomb which had exploded it does not appear that it was a powerful bomb which could have devastating effect but it was a weak type of bomb like thing which exploded on being thrown and had produced smoke. Even the deceased did not receive any injury from the explosion of this bomb. Consequently if the witnesses did not receive any injury due to the explosion of this bomb-like thing, it does not mean that they were not there or that they had not seen the occurrence. We do not find any improbability in the prosecution version. 21. Thus all the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants fail. Even after a close and careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, we find that the prosecution witnesses were reliable and truthful and that the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. All the three Appellants had fired shots from fire-arms causing injuries to the deceased, as a result of which he died at the spot. They had sufficient motive against the deceased. The occurrence had taken place at 5 p. m. in the evening when there was sufficient light in which the witnesses could have seen and identified the assailants. The first information report had been lodged promptly without any undue delay. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly correct in holding the Appellants guilty and in convicting them for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC. There was no merit in this appeal. 22. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction of the Appellants and the sentence of life imprisonment inflicted on each of them are maintained. They are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out their sentence.